Talk:Matt Strassler

Conflict of Interest

I have a WP:COI in regard to the page I am creating. I am an old acquaintance of the subject (we shared dorm space in college) , and I am creating this page with his encouragement and involvement. I am not taking any form of remuneration for my efforts, so WP:PAID does not apply. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability

The notability requirements for this article are met with Strassler's Fellow status in the American Physical Society, which qualifies him via WP:NACADEMIC #3. He also has an h-factor rating of 51, which indicates his meeting WP:NACADEMIC #1. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC) expanded 12 February

FAPS just about does it; 51 is perhaps borderline. What does concern me is reliability. For instance to support "Full Professor" you link to a teaching page where everyone is labelled "Professor". Since that is very commonly usage in the US for Asst & Assoc as well it is a questionable source. I also have strong reservations about including a book which has not yet appeared. Last, but not least, short bios in articles are not good RS, and you are elected a fellow.

He probably qualifies, but the sources need to be reliable. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You say 51 is borderline (and I should note that the InspireHEP is less than that, but in part because I used the conserative version there; if we use the "citable works" number and don't eliminate papers with over 10 authors, get 55), however, when I look to see what h-index is required to survive a notability test here, I find folks being kept whose deletion discussions mention 26, for 24, "mid-20s", 33. 21, 28, 18... going through the first couple dozen or so appropriate results for this search, I don't find an AFD that invokes an h-index over 25 that results in a "delete" (I do find one at 34 with "no consensus" and one with a similar value which was deemed sufficiently notable but draftified for other reasons; otherwise, all "keep".) Given that h-index is more a logarithmic rating than a linear one, it's hard to see that this is anywhere close to borderline, particularly since it's not a "shallow" index rating, as he has 5 papers of more than 500 cites.

As for the book, this is not some theoretical thing that might be printed in the future. In fact, it's already been printed (Strassler posted a photo of him holding a copy on Facebook) and it has reviews that indicate inclusion is WP:DUE. I think it's best that I include it now, when I can directly edit it into the article, rather than having to go through the poorly-attended requested edit system and tie up additional people's time in just a few weeks when it is released. I'm an editor of substantial experience here, and I cannot think of any article I've worked on or seen where the subject had authored a book or books and all mention of them was kept out of the article.

I'm don't agree that short bios in reliable-source articles are not reliable sources, and most of the matter that you seem to be concerned about is not particularly boastful given the context (i.e., if I were to say "I taught at the UPenn", that would be contextually boastful, because it's outside of any sourced experience that I have, but if we have established that he's taught at Harvard and Rutgers, we've already shown that he taught at that level, and should be able to accept some self-sourced information on the specific places taught.)

Anyway, we're working on sources for his Standford PhD and his term at UPenn. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

H-factors are very discipline dependent. In English, Math or Music an h-factor of 20 is major. I know of an economist who published a paper a year and was considered for a nobel. In most of physics 20 is assistant professor. HEP has high citation numbers, which is why 51 is marginal. If you look at the very top of the area, from Google Scholar that would be Nicola Semprini Cesari who has an h-factor of 238. There has been a recent discussion of this in WT:NPROF. However, the APS Fellows is generally accepted as proof of notability.

N.B., I would not be surprised to see low h-factors passing AfD. Sometimes what matters most is how many friends you can persuade, as against rigor. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: to me a book that has not appeared yet cannot be verified or be notable. In six months perhaps.

For the short bios, he wrote those so they are weak sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

A last addendum, all your examples are for areas where h-factors are low. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"Notability" would be a question if I was proposing an article about the book. For inclusion of information in an article, the standard is WP:DUE, which multiple reviews in respected sources indicate. For the statement being made, that there is a book scheduled for release, we have plenty of verification, as the Kirkus review carries that information, as does the publisher website, which may not be of use for showing import but is a perfectly viable source for WP:V on their own release schedule. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

And now I've added a full-page review in the journal Science, by notable physicist Don Lincoln. Inclusion of the book seems blatantly due. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And now, the Wall Street Journal review. (I do not currently have access to the Scientific American review.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Page not an orphan

There is currently no redlinks to Matt Strassler on Wikipedia, but that's only because there is already a redirect for the same person at Matthew Strassler, and links to that would be replaced (at List of American Physical Society Fellows (1998–2010)) with his name mentioned and linkable already at Cascading gauge theory, Kathryn Zurek, Seiberg duality, Gino Claudio Segrè, Higgs boson, Matter, Mass–energy equivalence, and Search for the Higgs boson. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of Aboutself source

At this point, while the positions that he has held are sourced to various third-party sources and/or the relevant institutions, the dates he held those positions are sourced to subject's own website. This should not be a problem; even if holding a certain position is considered boastful (and really, given his position at Harvard, none of the other positions should be, but I digress), the specific dates are not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe now OK

The article is very significantly better than what I declined it a month ago. I am not going to review it at WP:AfC a second time, but I would say that it has a decent chance of passing other reviewers, particularly with the APS fellow recognition and (now) better sourcing. Good luck. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what game you're playing here, since you voiced the previous OK and are now stopping by to laden it with tags, which are not well-grounded. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with WP:BLPSPS, which indicate that using a self-published source by the subject of a BLP article is acceptable for material which is not unduly self-serving nor significantly in doubt, and such things as saying that he studied music during a college career where he performed concerts and giving the dates for a career position that has been otherwise established surely qualify. The idea that a professorship position held by someone whose scholarly work is the primary basis for his article is not relevant is risible; that is basic information in an article on such a person. I ask that you review your recent additions in that light and remove them as appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Vast amounts of the current page are based upon [2], which is a self published blog. For instance it is the only source provided for his postdoc, that he studied music and you use it again to reinforce other sources. For [6] you use a page which states "Strassler, a theorist from the University of Washington in Seattle" as a source that he taught there.

You might not think it, but I am being gentle on you by pointing out issues so you can repair them. Many others will just remove large parts of the page. You may want to look at the comment added on my talk page by User4edits for Magenta.lily which I have included below in italics. User4edits pointed out some issues in the page Pankaj Mehta; I had been trying to help Magenta.lily with the page. (I think the comment is harsh, but I have seen harsher ones.)

Not using self-published and self-written sources from personal web pages is COMMONSENSE. Given your understanding of other WP policies and guidelines, and given your presumed relationship with academia, the hesitancy to understand the aforementioned commonsense gives an impression in which you might appear gaming the system. Also see the COI and ownership messages I have left on your talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If, as it appears, User4Edits is trying to push that such sources should never be used, that flies in the face of both practice (and I'm saying that as someone with far more Wikipedia editing experience than that account shows) and policy (as seen at WP:BLPSELFPUB.) That isn't to defend whatever specific usage they may be complaining about, but it fails as a general statement. But yes, there are bad editing comments elsewhere; I miss how that's support for your activities.

Hardly "vast amounts" of the article are based on "[2]"; it's two half-sentences under Education, and as a backup reference on a sentence-and-a-half in Teaching and scholarly positions. Which of that fails under WP:BLPSELFPUB? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Items to be restored

I am removing some perfectly reasonable WP:BLPSELFPUB statements just so that reviewing editors don't see the shame tags that have been placed on them and turn away from reviewing them, with an eye toward having them restored once the draft passes. I am pasting them here for easy reference later.

From the education section:

• studied music and

• and did post-doctoral work at Rutgers University

Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Supposed reference failure

@SafariScribe: Can you point me to the supposedly improperly referenced statements in this article on a subject that you admit meets notability requirements so that it can finally be gotten into article space? At this point every statement is referenced to sources that are online, including to major third-party reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal; those statements that are referenced to non-independent sources are done so sites that we would consider reasonable verification (a school's own site for that he taught there.) The only content for which Strassler's WP:BLPSPS material is cited is minor, non-boastful matters such as specific dates of a teaching assignment otherwise confirmed.

May I point you to just under WP:ANYBIO, where it says "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Stassler clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC on point 3, via his selection for the American Physical Society as covered in the Accolades section. If this article was reduced to just that section, would it satisfy your requirements? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to support @NatGertler here. I did not re-review this as, on principle I don't. However, if needed here I will. @SafariScribe please explain your statements. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I was at the church, so I didn't see this. First off, @Ldm1954, if you think you agree with NatGertler, then you re review the draft again. However, here are some places where I felt had a little problem with sourcing.

Source 1 is a primary source–subject's thesis and the info presented ultimately will be written by him. Source 4 needs an archive to view and source 5 was his own personal statements–frok.his website. Source 6 Abit clustered with him coming from the University of Washington. This is not clear as I can find where it stated that the subject taught in 2007, also a connected source. Source 9 is also connected and a simple profile of Matt.

While I support the potential article about Matt, I also cannot use this source to know he was elected fellow. I am just particular about his research Cascading gauge theory. IMO, one of the sourcing criteria of a BLP is that it should be sourced, atleast relevant parts. @Ldm1954, if you consider it fit, please move it to mainspace. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Source 1 was written by him but published by the university, and thus has their backing. The portion that it is being cited for, that Peskin was his Principle Advisor, is attested to in the document in Peskin's own hand.
• I'm not sure why you're saying that Source 4 needs an archive to view; it comes up fine for me (even with a reload, so it's not just coming from my cache.)
• Source 5 is yes, from his own websites, but is only being used for specific dates, which should be utterly reasonable as non-boastful WP:ABOUTSELF.
• I'm not sure what you're saying about Source 6, which specifies "Strassler, a theorist from the University of Washington in Seattle"
• The Washington.edu source is a verifying source for saying that he taught there, the end year can be sourced to again the same WP:ABOUTSELF source used earlier.
• Source 9 is yes, a connected source, being used for appropriate non-boastful information, as it is Harvard stating that he is an associate there. A listing of places that an academic has been on staff is fairly basic information, much in line with short bibliographies for authors or filmographies for actors. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @NatGertler, maybe that is a problem from a region/cache, though I have purged. I am willing to move this as meeting WP:NACADEMIC as soon as the redirect Matthew Strassler is deleted. Thanks @Ldm1954 for your opinion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you... but you shouldn't need to wait until Matthew Strassler is deleted, as this article is best placed at Matt Strassler, his more common public name now, as witness that being the name on his significantly-reviewed recent book. We can then just switch Matthew Strassler to be a redirect to Matt Strassler. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @NatGertler, please fix the APS fellow page, e.g. something like https://www.aps.org/funding-recognition/winners?award_recipients%5Bpage%5D=4 (change the number). Also fix the "relevance" comments from before, i.e. connect them. Ping me and I will review it. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like the APS did away with or at least moved their online fellow archive since I added that reference; I have added a link to an archive of that archive page which will display the Strassler entry. I am unclear on what you mean by your "relevance" tag; where he taught would seem to me quite relevant to the career of the academic this article is about. Or are you trying to say that the references are somehow not relevant to the statements made? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Re 1, the only valid source that someone did a PhD is the actual thesis, which is a referred document. No other source is appropriate for an academic.
• For 4 it comes up directly for me, not an archive and a standard secondary source.
• 5 is OK as it also has 4 to verify it
• 6 is also OK, although I earlier tagged how useful it was
• 7 is a very strong secondary source. Course details are effectively legal documents, and the university is responsible for their truth. See the bottom for the source.
• You are also wrong about 9. If universities misrepresent on pages they can get into BIG trouble in the US. Note who owns the cooyright.
• I do agree that the source for him being an APS fellow is strange. I know he is, @NatGertler please fix that.
• There is nothing wrong with the cascading gauge theory link.

Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Thime subject is notable per WP:ANYBIO, just that the lack of sourcing of this WP:BLP is grossly appealing, and needs attention. Don't resubmit if you don't replace with reliable sources that significantly covered the subject researches or himself. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Checking again, editor has still not prepared a proper article and has numerous references to his self-published Blog page, and also a few references which do not justify the statements they are attached to. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: While reviewing this, there were far too many statments made which could not be verified, for instance "full Professor at Rutgers". Some I have deleted, some I have marked. Too many statements bent the truth too far for me. While he does have a few well cited papers, he has no major academic awards and too much dubious information for me to be comfortable with accepting this draft. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)